I learned today that Women for Romney is hosting a fundraiser cum birthday party for Ann Romney in conjunction with a guy named Fred Malek. Malek was arrested in 1959 for cruelty to animals because he and four other men killed, skinned, and barbecued a dog. They were stopped by park police because their car and clothing was covered in animal blood. The charges against Fred Malek were later dismissed because one of the guys confessed to it and Malek said he was drunk, and therefore wasn't "involved" or "in a position to stop it." Here is a Washington Post article with more information: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/10/AR2006031001843.html

Do you think that at the very least it's unwise for a man who has already had to answer to accusations of animal neglect (due to the whole dog in a crate on the roof thing) to be fundraising with this type of person?

Do you think it makes him unfit, ethically, for the office of President?

And it had a lot of effect on his candidacy, didn't it? Well, no, it didn't. And this little kerfuffle is even less important than that, AND it attacks Romney's wife, which Mr. Obama has clearly said is out of bounds.

And it had a lot of effect on his candidacy, didn't it? Well, no, it didn't. And this little kerfuffle is even less important than that, AND it attacks Romney's wife, which Mr. Obama has clearly said is out of bounds.

I agree it's not important. I'm still getting emails that are fabricated stories about Obama. Do they have an effect? Of course they do. The people sending them believe them.

I guarantee both sides have all sorts of wealthy sociopaths supporting them. This is why we need to get corporate $$ out of politics. Step one is amending the constitution such that corporations are no longer afforded the rights of humans.

Mitt Romney was born on March 12, 1947, in Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Virginia and several other swing states. He emerged, hair first, believing in America, and especially its national parks. He was given the name Mitt, after the Roman god of mutual funds, and launched into the world with the lofty expectation that he would someday become the Arrow shirt man.

Romney was a precocious and gifted child. He uttered his first words (“I like to fire people”) at age 14 months, made his first gaffe at 15 months and purchased his first nursery school at 24 months. The school, highly leveraged, went under, but Romney made 24 million Jujubes on the deal.
...
After his mission, he attended Harvard, studying business, law, classics and philosophy, though intellectually his first love was always tax avoidance. After Harvard, he took his jawline to Bain Consulting, a firm with very smart people with excessive personal hygiene. While at Bain, he helped rescue many outstanding companies, like Pan Am, Eastern Airlines, Atari and DeLorean.

I guarantee both sides have all sorts of wealthy sociopaths supporting them. This is why we need to get corporate $$ out of politics. Step one is amending the constitution such that corporations are no longer afforded the rights of humans.

And that needs to be for unions, as well. A corporation may well have tons of money, but so do unions, and they have voters they can muster, as well. That being said, Constitutional amendments are some of the most difficult things to pass:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress...

Any organization that shields its members/shareholders from personal liability of the actions of the organization is of grave concern.
Corporations are the most worrisome because they are formed solely for profit.

Isn't it necessary for organizations to shield their members from personal liability of the actions of the organization? I would hate to be held personally liable for the actions of any organization I belong to/any company I own shares in. Now, the decision makers should have some personal liability. But not your average member/shareholder. I wouldn't join any organizations or buy any shares if I thought that would open me to personal liability.

A corporation can be any kind of entity. Non-profits are frequently corporations. It's a description of how they're operated, not what their intent is. I know 3 people who own a business together and have formed a corporation.

Isn't it necessary for organizations to shield their members from personal liability of the actions of the organization?

No.

I would hate to be held personally liable for the actions of any organization I belong to/any company I own shares in.

Yes, wouldn't we all - Especially if we are not made aware of all the inner workings of said organization.

A corporation can be any kind of entity. Non-profits are frequently corporations. It's a description of how they're operated, not what their intent is. I know 3 people who own a business together and have formed a corporation.

I didn't say forming corporations should be made illegal (is that what you are implying? I'm not sure)

I think the point the OP is trying to make is that corporations shouldn't have the same free speech rights as individuals do; as the Supreme Court recently ruled they do. If corporations are collections of people, do those people lose their rights by virtue of belonging to a corporation? I don't think so. The unions have been pouring tons of money into elections for almost 100 years and they're corporations. If the Supreme Court decision is overturned by way of Constitutional Amendment, just think of all the other entities that will fall under that ban: AARP, various wildlife and environmental groups and other groups that advocate for the things we care about. Any Constitutional Amendment would, of necessity, have to carefully and painstakingly define just what constitutes a corporation under the Amendment. Once that's done, it will, in effect, be carved in stone. Any mistakes or oversights would have to be corrected by yet another Amendment; an extremely difficult process.

Your voice can be represented in government by your individual donation to political parties/campaigns and your vote. You can join any organization you want (union, AARP, whatever) and heed their advice with regards to your political decisions. Organizations are free to espouse any ideas that they want. "Free speech" would not be impaired.

Money in politics is a complex problem blurred by years of enmeshment and deliberate suppression of facts. There are no easy answers and no single solution. Is this why you are pointing out how difficult the process is? Or to inspire apathy?

I learned today that Women for Romney is hosting a fundraiser cum birthday party for Ann Romney in conjunction with a guy named Fred Malek. Malek was arrested in 1959 for cruelty to animals because he and four other men killed, skinned, and barbecued a dog. They were stopped by park police because their car and clothing was covered in animal blood. The charges against Fred Malek were later dismissed because one of the guys confessed to it and Malek said he was drunk, and therefore wasn't "involved" or "in a position to stop it." Here is a Washington Post article with more information: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/10/AR2006031001843.html

Do you think that at the very least it's unwise for a man who has already had to answer to accusations of animal neglect (due to the whole dog in a crate on the roof thing) to be fundraising with this type of person?

Do you think it makes him unfit, ethically, for the office of President?

No more than it makes Mr. Obama's references in his autobiography to eating dog meat as a child makes him unfit.

I agree, it is not the same. I think that everybody who lives and breathes has something undesirable in their past. Those things don't necessarily make an unethical person and someone unfit for public offce, even the presidency. The story I read said that Malek and his friends were drunk and that was in 1959, fifty three years ago. IMHO, it needs to be left in the past and shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not people should associate with him. As for Mr. Romney putting his dog on the car, I don't like that either. I don't even like to see people drive around in pickup trucks with their dog loose in the back. But if I associate with somebody who does either one, I don't think it makes me unethical. In my past I have done some stupid stuff too, but it didn't involve dogs or cats. LOL

. If the Supreme Court decision is overturned by way of Constitutional Amendment, just think of all the other entities that will fall under that ban: AARP, various wildlife and environmental groups and other groups that advocate for the things we care about.

Citizens United, the case you are referring to, did not concern any ban on political speech by anyone. It concerned the validity of limits on just how much money corporations and unions can pour into political campaigns -- and in effect how much their messages dominate the political conversation, because more money means more airtime for their commercials. Citizens United removed all limits on that money, so now they can yell as loud as they want -- and because they generally have the most money, they will essentially drown out everyone else.

I agree, it is not the same. I think that everybody who lives and breathes has something undesirable in their past. Those things don't necessarily make an unethical person and someone unfit for public offce, even the presidency. The story I read said that Malek and his friends were drunk and that was in 1959, fifty three years ago. IMHO, it needs to be left in the past and shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not people should associate with him. As for Mr. Romney putting his dog on the car, I don't like that either. I don't even like to see people drive around in pickup trucks with their dog loose in the back. But if I associate with somebody who does either one, I don't think it makes me unethical. In my past I have done some stupid stuff too, but it didn't involve dogs or cats. LOL

So we agree. LOL! I wasn't disputing any of what you just said, just that being fed dog as a child doesn't compare to something one does on purpose as an adult.